During lengthy discussions the specimen became the subject of a detailed analysis as a possible
fake.
The reason for this is that the
obverse of this soin was supposedly made by the same die as other
aurei.
At least, it greatly resembles.
To such extent that
Curtis Clay believed that it is the same and claimed:
"I think that's the same
obv. die too, just differently illuminated and photographed."
"
In my opinion, formed over many decades of compiling die studies of Roman imperial coins, there are so many points of absolute identity, that the dies must be the same. Two apparent points of DIFFERENCE, cannot outweigh the 100 or so points of absolute IDENTITY.
I don't think there is any real difference in the beard, and as for the apparent slight displacement of the dot, who knows,
one would have to examine the specimens themselves or plaster casts of them under magnification.
As a rule, one does not find Roman dies which differ in only a few small points, but are otherwise identical.
When dies are different, they differ in dozens of details, as was to be expected since they were engraved freehand!"
Unfortunately, one must admit that the dies are different. Moreover, one cannot explain the difference just because
they are different state of the same die (altered by re-engraving or repairing), fotoshoping or the light effects.
To my opinion, the Gemini coin is produced by a different die which could not be produced by a "freehand".
The
reverse die also have some particularities needed to be explaned.
It seems is reasonable to transfer the discussion on this particular coin to the
fake section frequented by
"
fake hunters" whose experience may
help us greatly. I
hope also that the
thread on
Aventine hoard will be extended
by new observations.